Earlier this week, NRA-PVF released a series of radio and television spots to educate gun owners and sportsmen about Barack Obama's longstanding anti-gun record. In response to the NRA-PVF ads, a clearly panicked Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are doing everything they can to hide Obama's real record by mounting a coordinated assault on the First Amendment.

They have gone to desperate and outrageous lengths to try to silence your NRA by bullying media outlets with threats of lawsuits if they run NRA-PVF's ads. They have sent intimidating cease and desist letters to cable operators and television stations, threatening their FCC licenses if they run the ads.

Impartial? Independent? Apparently NOT! FactCheck and Brady Campaign in Bed with Annenberg Foundation: FactCheck supposedly exists to look beyond a politician's claims. Ironically, in its analysis of NRA materials on Barack Obama, these so-called "FactCheckers" use the election year campaign rhetoric of a presidential candidate and a verbal claim by one of the most zealous gun control supporters in Congress to refute facts compiled by NRA's research of vote records and review of legislative language.

Outrage Of The Week: This week's Outrage comes to us courtesy of U.S. Representative Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) who recently lashed out at Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin (R) while trying to muster support for anti-gun Presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Hastings has a well-deserved reputation for opening his mouth and speaking his mind. But this week, when he opened his mouth, he put his foot into it. Way into it.

America's Largest and Most Radical Hunting-Ban Group Endorses Barack Obama--It's Just One More Association With Radicals That He Can't Run From: While Barack Obama lies to America's gun owners and hunters about his longstanding public record in support of legislation stripping Americans of essential liberties, his so-called friends are thwarting his campaign of deception. The Humane Society Legislative Fund, the political arm of the radical Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), is the most recent to foil Obama's best laid plans after giving him the organization's unequivocal endorsement. This should be a resounding wake-up call to America's millions of hunters.

2008 Gun Rights Policy Conference: This year's Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) will be held in Phoenix, Arizona, on September 26, 27, & 28, at the beautiful Sheraton Crescent hotel. The theme of this year's conference is "Elect Freedom!"

Time Is Running Out To Register To Vote! One of the simplest, yet most important, things gun owners can do this election season is ensure they are currently registered to vote. Our vote is our voice; if we don't use it, we will lose it! We can't afford to let others decide for us who will represent our interests in Washington or in the state legislatures. Many states voter registration deadlines expire 30 days prior to Election Day (November 4th), so time is running out!

It just more rule by lawyers. Do what I say or get ready to spend millions in court. Sadly, it is a very effective way to intimidate people. This should scare the hell out of people because think what powers of intimidation Obama will have at hand if he is President

I was reading the reason that Obama doesn't like the ads is that they are allegedly deceptive. I don't even remember what site I read it on, but it said that the ads were designed to look like Obama's campaign literature (very similar layout, color scheme, etc.), and even the writing scheme was designed to look like something the Obama campaign would write to try to entice voters. Deceptive, yeah, but then again that’s campaigning for you, regardless of who’s doing it. Doesn’t sound like anything much worse than what a lot of others candidates/groups do.

FWIW, it doesn’t sound to me so much like the Obama campaign trying “to hide Obama's real record by mounting a coordinated assault on the First Amendment” as some would have you believe. You can find Obama or McCain’s record anywhere on the internet. I think it really is the campaign trying to get a deceptive ad banned, regardless of whether it’s any more deceptive than others.

Obama has used similar tricks as he moved up every rung of the ladder.

He got his state legislature seat by getting a judge to declare all real challengers including the incumbent Democrat declared inelligible. This gave him an effectively uncontested election to the Illinois state legislature.

When he was running for his current U.S. Senate seat, he was losing. He got a California judge to release the sealed divorce records of his opponent. This embarrassed his opponent into dropping out. He wins this seat in an effectively uncontested election.

It's the Chicago machine politics goon squad mentality. There are no limits to the tricks they will use to get what they want. Sicking lawyers onto small business and threatening them with lawsuits is pure intimidation. They know these small business cannot fight back. Even if they tried, the election would be over and it wouldn't matter who actually won the lawsuit. They can win in two ways. One from the pure intimidation. Secondly, they get a liberal judge to put an injunction on the ad while he "considers" the arguments and he will consider them until sometime in early November Even the NRA cannot fight a judge in such a short time.

All the rest is just perfume to hide the stench of the bullshit.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.

The NRA continues to narrow its base by scare tactics and failing to create broader based coalitions with hunting groups that are made up of Democratic voters as well as Republicans. It is a strategy that will weaken the NRA and the broader base of the hunting and conservation community that is needed to carry forth in the defense of anti hunting sentiments in the US.

Pacific Fisher wrote:The NRA continues to narrow its base by scare tactics and failing to create broader based coalitions with hunting groups that are made up of Democratic voters as well as Republicans. It is a strategy that will weaken the NRA and the broader base of the hunting and conservation community that is needed to carry forth in the defense of anti hunting sentiments in the US.

I used to think they were just scare tactics too, but then then Washington DC banned guns, against the second amendment, and once it reached the supreme court it was a 5-to-4 decision. What is there to question, it is your right as an American so why wasn't a unanimous decision. There was no ambiguity in what our founding fathers meant when they put in the second amendment. Just go back and read the letters of Thomas Jefferson.

You would think the biggest clue would be that when they banned guns in DC, crime went up, not down.

Make no mistake, left wing liberals are trying to do away with the second amendment. I'm surprised anyone who loves to hunt and is a gun owner would back Obama.

I guess the liberals are doing whatever helps them sleep better at night, but I sleep a lot better with a gun near my bed, because when an intruder hears the racking of a shotgun shell, he's going to think twice before he takes another step.

It's a fact that 70 percent of the people who purchase heavier tackle do so with the categorical I just lost a huge snook! Einstein Hairdo.The other 30 percent have either Tarpon Fever or are sporting a hand cramped into a claw from a deepwater grouper.

I am in no way supportive of getting rid of anyone's guns, but there IS ambiguity in the 2nd amendment. It talks about a militia when describing the reason why there is a need for arms. If it simply said “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” then there would be absolutely no ambiguity, but because it speaks of a well-regulated militia before mentioning that citizens need to be armed (and since there aren’t a lot of militias running around these days), it can be interpreted as “guns are only a constitutional right if owned for militia purposes, which applies to few if any citizens today.” I don’t necessarily agree with that interpretation, but it is very easy to see how it can be interpreted that way. And if there was no ambiguity, there would be a lot less gun laws and a lot less arguments/court cases over what the 2nd amendment was originally intended to mean.

Today the militia includes every adult. Back then it included every able-bodied adult white male.

Every word has meaning. You can't erase any without changing the meaning.

It is not an unrestricted right to own nuclear arms. Nobody is arguing that machine guns should be unrestricted. Felons lose their right to keep and bear arms, but not other rights. Children do not have a right to keep and bear arms. The severely mentally ill do not have a right to bear arms.

If it was unambiguous as you wrote it, then you could not have any restrictions at all. The restrictions cannot undermine the basic right of the people to keep and bear arms, however every individual does not have that right if they are reasonably disqualified. That is why there is some necessary ambiguity.

It also doesn't mean that you can just keep them locked in a gun safe. You also have a right to bear them.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.

Don't forget that the 2nd ammendment was written at a time of English tyranny and the goal was to make sure that type of tyranny was not translated into our newly formed goverment. A government of the people for the people.

We are no longer a government of the people. We are a government of the politicians for the politicians. They care only about their own personal agendas. We are very close to a socialized government raining down similar infringing tyranny on our individual rights.

Now more than ever we need to protect all of our individual rights.

When it comes to the 2nd ammendment the idea of hunting was as ingrained as any right. The luck we have had is that the right to bear arms is translated to hunting rights. It probably never crossed the minds of those who wrote the constitution that the ability to hunt would ever be challenged. Hunting was a right because of the absolute necessity in those days.

# of times able to get out hunting.. 1Duck totals:Mallards: Wood Ducks: Mergansers: Bufflehead:

Pacific Fisher wrote:The NRA continues to narrow its base by scare tactics and failing to create broader based coalitions with hunting groups that are made up of Democratic voters as well as Republicans. It is a strategy that will weaken the NRA and the broader base of the hunting and conservation community that is needed to carry forth in the defense of anti hunting sentiments in the US.

How would you know? You were never a part of it.

Mailed any bricks lately?

Not to fear Tom... PF is a staunch stump endorser of the Sierra Club. While he insists that the Sierra Club is pro-hunting and pro-gun, their actions speak loader than their rhetoric. Just like the American Hunters and Shooters Association. Shell organization with deceptive names run by left wing wackos with ulterior agendas. No one with any amount of common sense buys it.

The Sierra Club is pro hunting and fishing. They have a section of their web site devoted to it. It is supported in their official, national policy approved by their board of directors.
Last year they gave away a hunting trip to Alaska, and this year they have a hunting and fishing photo contest.

The Sierra Club is pro hunting and fishing. They have a section of their web site devoted to it. It is supported in their official, national policy approved by their board of directors. Last year they gave away a hunting trip to Alaska, and this year they have a hunting and fishing photo contest.

Sierra Club's Policy On Sport Hunting & Fishing
Wildlife and Native Plant Management, Sport Hunting And Fishing - Wildlife and native plant management should emphasize maintenance and restoration of healthy, viable native plant and animal populations, their habitats, and ecological processes. Acceptable management approaches include both regulated periodic hunting and fishing when based on sufficient scientifically valid biological data and when consistent with all other management purposes and when necessary total protection of particular species or populations.

Because national parks are set aside for the preservation of natural landscapes and wildlife, the Sierra Club is opposed to sport hunting in national parks.
— Adopted by the Sierra Club Board of Directors, December 10-11, 1994.

If you want to put money back into nature, keep buying your states hunting licenses and ammunition. They contribute largely to your states natural resources. I also give money to DU and those types of organizations that are obviously pro hunter. I would suggest if you have any reservations about the sierra club, then put your money elsewhere.

It's a fact that 70 percent of the people who purchase heavier tackle do so with the categorical I just lost a huge snook! Einstein Hairdo.The other 30 percent have either Tarpon Fever or are sporting a hand cramped into a claw from a deepwater grouper.

jaysweet3 wrote:We are seeing the infiltration of the hippie types here. Do you guys even hunt? Or are you just here to participate in the political debate?

My experience on other political forums is that it is more common that right wing folks that enter these forums to talk politics that have little or no hunting experience and contribute little or nothing to the forums on: duck calling, shooting, reloading, dog training, decoys, hunting gear etc...

I have 50 years of hunting experience. I have been a licensed hunting and fishing guide for 24 years. I grew up running trap-lines, am a third generation trainer of bird dogs, I reload, build/accurize my own rifles, and have been the Chair of a County Fish and Game Commission for a dozen years.

If that is in fact the case. How can you support a presidential canadidate that is so anti hunting and gun? In Obama's short political career, he has voted anti gun and hunting at every oppertunity. I think, there, is your first real reason, not to vote for him.

Then you can take a look at his stance on crime. Votes against anti gang legislation, mandatiry minimums, and at the same time votes against home owners defending their own homes. He panders to his constituenty at every chance to garner votes, at the expense of everyone else.

Since he has such a limited ammount of time as an elected politician, we need to look beyond his voting record, to get a guage on what kind of a man we are considering electing. So far not too encouraging. He has shown nothing but, poor judgement in his personal, social, political, and business asociations. Allingning himself with the likes of Ayers, Rezko, and Wright. Good judgement. Ha! Anything but.

Take a look at the recent events with this bailout nonsence. McCain was right there in Washington to work on and make decisions (weither we agree with them or not). Obama was out on the road campainging and dodgeing having to make a real decision. The man has dodged a lot of the big votes that would define him one way or the other. He is afraid to make a wrong decision, so in turn he doesn't make one. While in the Illinois legislature he voted present 170 times.

The one thing he is good at is taking money from special interest groups. In short order he gets millions in prokbarell money that goes nowhere. I live in Obamas state. He is my senator. He has done NOTHING. Let me repeat that, NOTHING, for the people of Illinois. Proabably spent more time campaigning for his own political career than working for the people that elected him.

Now he blames everything against Bush, (who he isn't running against) and cries about change. Basically bumpersticker slogans and everyone eats it up.